M
Mac
Wow, Godwin's law invoked on the first post of the thread.
--Mac
Wow, Godwin's law invoked on the first post of the thread.
--Mac
R
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| (e-mail address removed) (John Doherty) wrote:
| >AND HOW MANY SPACES PER TAB STOP?
|
| Eight. Now talk about indenting skip returns...that one
| required blood transfusions. [emoticon looks at list of n.g.]
| I guess not many will understand.
+---------------
You might be surprised, Barb. Quite a few of the comp.lang.lisp crew
are former PDP-10 geeks. ;-}
And just to be sure *I'm* understanding what you're talking about, ;-}
did you mean the convention of the second line of the following snippet?
foo: pushj p,ckperm
pjrst badprm ; user lacks privs, complain & return.
movei t0,cmdblk ; o.k. to proceed.
...
Indenting the non-skip return for a subroutine call was always pretty
clear to me. Where things got really muddled (and contentious!) was
when you had long skip chains of T{R,L}{Z,O,C,~}{N,E} instructions
in which whether a particular instruction was in the skipped-to or
non-skipped position depended dynamically on the flow of control
above it. [HAKMEM was chock-full of that kind of "efficient" code.]
In that case, it seemed more readable to simply not indent anything in
the skip chain, and put a scary comment warning about the tricky code.
-Rob
| (e-mail address removed) (John Doherty) wrote:
| >AND HOW MANY SPACES PER TAB STOP?
|
| Eight. Now talk about indenting skip returns...that one
| required blood transfusions. [emoticon looks at list of n.g.]
| I guess not many will understand.
+---------------
You might be surprised, Barb. Quite a few of the comp.lang.lisp crew
are former PDP-10 geeks. ;-}
And just to be sure *I'm* understanding what you're talking about, ;-}
did you mean the convention of the second line of the following snippet?
foo: pushj p,ckperm
pjrst badprm ; user lacks privs, complain & return.
movei t0,cmdblk ; o.k. to proceed.
...
Indenting the non-skip return for a subroutine call was always pretty
clear to me. Where things got really muddled (and contentious!) was
when you had long skip chains of T{R,L}{Z,O,C,~}{N,E} instructions
in which whether a particular instruction was in the skipped-to or
non-skipped position depended dynamically on the flow of control
above it. [HAKMEM was chock-full of that kind of "efficient" code.]
In that case, it seemed more readable to simply not indent anything in
the skip chain, and put a scary comment warning about the tricky code.
-Rob
B
Brian Inglis
J
jmfbahciv
Yep, but you have a bug. The MOVEI [emoticon scrolls down to look]
heh... my reply form is non-porportional and now everything is
wrong. That's why the hard and fast rule of 8 was used in PDP-10
land.
It was to the -20 types, too. The -10 types maintained that,
if the human code reader didn't know the call had a skip return,
he had no business looking at the code. Having the opcodes all
line up left-justified made reading code quickly possible.
If you knew your biz, you didn't need the scary warning. Now
consider a list of PUSHJs where each could have a skip,
double-skip or triple-skip return. Depending on which way
you're flowing through the code, each and every one could be
indented and not-indented.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
J
jmfbahciv
Nah, he's a Democrat of the Liberal flavor.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
J
jmfbahciv
[email protected] said:
I understand.
The style I used for PDP-10 macro assembly language was
*) Indent two spaces for error return from subroutine or UUO (or jsys)
*) Indent one space for instructions that skip or may skip.
The other point of contention was what to put between the opcode and
its arguments; space vs tab. I had some TECO macros that would
undo the damage after pristine code had been munged by someone
not conforming to style.
<GRIN> And we had some that put them back.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
J
Joe Smith
I understand.
The style I used for PDP-10 macro assembly language was
*) Indent two spaces for error return from subroutine or UUO (or jsys)
*) Indent one space for instructions that skip or may skip.
The other point of contention was what to put between the opcode and
its arguments; space vs tab. I had some TECO macros that would
undo the damage after pristine code had been munged by someone
not conforming to style.
-Joe
M
Mac
Hmm. No explicit comparison was made, but since the post is a cautionary
tale (well, the post is a rambling mess, but I think it is trying to be a
cautionary tale) I think the comparison is understood.
But if the comparison must be explicit, as you seem to be saying, then I
have to concede the point.
Best regards,
Mac
D
David Schwartz
The you're missing is that 'unixism' has nothing to do with *using*
UNIX.
The problem with 'unixism' is its affect on UNIX, and it would be
logical that only those people who use UNIXes are affected by 'unixism' and
concerned about it.
DS
B
Brian Inglis
Google for the Godwin's Law FAQ on how to troll on Usenet, mention
Nazis, and not be caught by Godwins' Law.
M
Michele Dondi
Really!
Michele
N
norman werner
Well, let's see how your clear your mind was today.
I read it as an 'two-in-one'.
A (not funny) joke about the troll and an infantile sideremark about
eo spreading more half-truths.
"universal language" - Whats that? What is a universal language ...
Besides expressing basic wishes for food, attention or love. And
where is/was the relation between the troll and eo?
i read it _later_ . From youre joke it seemed more like you "heard of
esperanto".
So I hereby withdraw the accusation of stupidity - standing firm only
on the not-funny-front.
Allright - it was not a translation - the error was to call it an
translation. But since only a extremly small minority of readers could
read both - it seemed ok for me to change not the basic-message but
the way to express this message. E.g. I could not see the relevance
for a non-eo-speaker of eo having a x or not. So i changed this in the
"translation".
Yep.
At least i was not the only who misunderstood you.
And please; Since you elaborated on my "translation" - it's ok to
criticize.
But the same does not hold true for my logic-skill-malfunction - so
either do not diagnose it or elaborate more on it.
Norman
I read it as an 'two-in-one'.
A (not funny) joke about the troll and an infantile sideremark about
eo spreading more half-truths.
"universal language" - Whats that? What is a universal language ...
Besides expressing basic wishes for food, attention or love. And
where is/was the relation between the troll and eo?
i read it _later_ . From youre joke it seemed more like you "heard of
esperanto".
So I hereby withdraw the accusation of stupidity - standing firm only
on the not-funny-front.
Allright - it was not a translation - the error was to call it an
translation. But since only a extremly small minority of readers could
read both - it seemed ok for me to change not the basic-message but
the way to express this message. E.g. I could not see the relevance
for a non-eo-speaker of eo having a x or not. So i changed this in the
"translation".
Yep.
At least i was not the only who misunderstood you.
And please; Since you elaborated on my "translation" - it's ok to
criticize.
But the same does not hold true for my logic-skill-malfunction - so
either do not diagnose it or elaborate more on it.
Norman
A
Alan Balmer
Not me. I'd just assume that they couldn't afford to switch vehicles
whenever they had a complaint.
A
Antony Sequeira
Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?Andre said:
-Antony
B
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
"Cautionary tale"???? Cautionary tale, my arse.
The post was the fuckwitted ramblings of a total raving looney; kill the
thread (and the original poster) and forget about it.
P
Pascal Bourguignon
Antony Sequeira said:
It's VMS'ism !
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we.
R
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| > Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
|
| It's VMS'ism !
+---------------
Well, originally, certainly, in the core of the kernel.
But there are plenty enough "Unixisms" in the rest of it!
[Go re-read "Worse is Better", then see if you don't agree...]
-Rob
| > Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
|
| It's VMS'ism !
+---------------
Well, originally, certainly, in the core of the kernel.
But there are plenty enough "Unixisms" in the rest of it!
[Go re-read "Worse is Better", then see if you don't agree...]
-Rob
A
Andre Majorel
If by unixism, you mean any operating system that has a
hierarchical filesystem and byte stream files, yes. But that
would include quite a few other non-Unix operating systems,
including Mac OS 9, Prologue and probably everything else this
side of CP/M (DOS 1.x shall be deemed to be CP/M).
B
Brian Inglis
DOS 2.x+ shall be deemed to be CP/M+!
L
Loic Domaigne
Windows (MS) is not 'Unixism'?
Without all the security aspects, of course...
Loic.
Without all the security aspects, of course...
Loic.